Will the REAL Hillary Please Stand Up?

“Hil's for filibuster

Takes rebel stand to oppose Alito OK for Supremes

By RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

Democratic leaders had warned that filibuster efforts were going nowhere and would let President Bush score easy political points, but Clinton said, "I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation."

"I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear," she said, adding she would vote against a move to cut off a filibuster should one occur.

[snip]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/386437p-327892c.html

___________________________________________________________________________________

Um, she does know that the Supreme Court justices aren't supposed to "advance" anything, right?

Maybe this government thingy is new to her?”

“youre just looking for something to argue about

haha just kidding”

“Uhh...Hillary? You've got some brown on your nose...”

“crash - That's enough man. Get over it. You took something out of context that what's her name said and you're blaming me for it. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. All you do is pester me anymore on here. Like I said, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, get over it. I'm not going to play troll-wars anymore, so find another victim.”

“~snicker~”

“awww poor s-rge, CB quit picking on him..lol”

“LOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlol

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL”

“http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/21/2007-09-21_hillary_clinton_im_not_a_lesbian.html

Hillary Clinton officially declared she's not a lesbian - not that there's anything wrong with that.”

“Sorry to step on your thread, Sarge. Didn't see it.”

“I don't know what you're talking about - but that's ok.”

“oh I see it now”

“hikerboy”

“LOL

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303808,00.html

What a great lady

As the “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks anymore. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

or even

The financial sleaze that dominated the final Clinton years is also making a comeback. After Norman Hsu, one of Clinton’s biggest campaign “bundlers”, was exposed as a fraud, it emerged last week that waiters, dishwashers and street peddlers in New York’s Chinatown have been handing over $1,000 and $2,000 sums to her campaign – some with genuine pride, others because they were ordered to do so by neighborhood bosses.”

“


”

“wait we are dissing the lefties. hmm think the righties will go insane?
last edited: 12/19/07 4:04:55 PM”

“Libbies are so silly.”

“I'm startin' to feel sorry for the Hill- may change my vote.”

“Probably, �Maple.

Brains will probably squirt out of their ears.”

“I am sorry but pretty much the whole campaign roster from both sides fills me with a PROFOUND case of WGASA.

Hey Tilty...Bob Young is coming into town tomorrow.....You gotta admit he did two great things for this town. He took one for the team when he married YOU KNOW WHO....and he gave Augusta Deke.”

“same here, all but Ron Paul. All other candidates are just book ends holding together the same books, but from different sides. Ron Paul is the only ones telling us that we have too damn many books on the top shelf (federal) so take them down and reshelve them on the lower state shelves.”

“...combined with a completely idiotic and totally unrealistic fairy tale of a foreign policy.”

“... one of which you have contantly mischaracterized and misunderstood.”

“...because apparently Ron Paul doesn't really mean what he says.”

“My vote is for the idea of Ron Paul, not for Ron Paul. Maybe if someone who takes their civic duty as a public servant seriously can put a scare into the political establishment then people of character will start running for higher office again.

Its gotten to the point that the only people capable of getting elected to president are the last people you want with their finger on the button.”

“�...because apparently Ron Paul doesn't really mean what he says.�

That makes no sense. You mischaracterize him and misunderstand him because Ron Paul doesn't really mean what he says?

If he didn't mean what he says (his voting record proves without a shadow of a doubt you're wrong), you'd think you'd want to properly characterize him then.”

“The guy's direct quotes damn him. If I'm mischaracterizing his literal words as you suggested I am, then he apparently has some other meaning than what he says.

Suffice it to say that Islamofascist terrorism will NOT stop if we adopt nonintervention policies in the ME. That's been more than proven by global terrorist events. AQ gives two sh*ts less about the veracity of its propaganda about our presence in the ME being the cause of 9/11 and terrorism. Also, it will be pretty damn hard to engage in all that "free trade" Ron wants to do when he wants to defund the power structure that keeps the trade routes open and free.”

“The guy's direct quotes damn him. If I'm mischaracterizing his literal words as you suggested I am, then he apparently has some other meaning than what he says.

On the Ron Paul thread, you were clearly shown the door on this. You misinterpreted the words "isolationist" and "non-interventionalist", even going so far as to call isolationists "liberals"! LOL!

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/48128,-1,7.php”

“No, the semantics game was your dodge to avoid embarrassing RP quotes. Also, I called *you* a liberal for believing that 9/11 was our fault.

Sheesh, come up with something new.”

“No, the semantics game was your dodge to avoid embarrassing RP quotes. Also, I called *you* a liberal for believing that 9/11 was our fault.

Ok, answer this very direct question. What is the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionalist? Then, relate that to Ron Paul's position. When you do that, you'll see you are clearly wrong.

Sheesh, come up with something new.

You mean, change the subject? LOL!”

“And my point was that his "nonintervention" mumbojumbo is little more than defacto isolationism. Kinda like Intelligent Design is not creationism because there's no mention of the christian god, but of course in reality it is barely disguised creationism.

You've been desperately trying to score a point on this, but you're only highlighting the fact that you can't defend Paul's stance. Keep harping on more tangents - that's working real well for you. LMAO.”

“But his POLICY positions disagree with you. He is not an isolationist, and the term is not interchangeable with non-interventionalist.

His policies DO jive with a non-interventionalist position.

His policies DO NOT jive with an isolationalist position.

That is fact.

You don't seem to know what the two terms actually mean.

Anyways, even if you did, which you clearly don't - you're complaining that he's supposedly an isolationalist - but that is a conservative position to take. AND, you mocked me by saying I was showing my libbie-side for supporting that.

That makes no sense, unless you don't understand what you're talking about.

Are you complaining that he's too liberal, or too conservative?”

“AND, you mocked me by saying I was showing my libbie-side for supporting that. - Sarge

You're a liar now (another liberal trait coming through). I mocked you for your liberal anti-american 9/11 comments, like I said before. Here's the transcript:

Secondly, he is right. Us being involved in politics over there IS what instigated them to take action - Sarge

LOL! Okay, you've officially declared your libbie-ism. - Mutt

Are you going to continue to lie about this?

And like I said before, his free trade ideas don't mix well with defunding the armed forces. I've more than explained where I was coming from on this. Like I said, harping on your tangent isn't doing what you think it's doing.”

“Sarge, I have been reading his stuff closely and I keep getting the same attitude that he is for "getting out" of the ME. Sorry I just get the attitude that he does not totally grasp the real and tangible threat that Islamofascisim is to the world.”

“Gee, ya think? Like AQ striking other countries that have nothing to do with the ME?

But ol' Ron and his Ronbots are convinced that if we just treat the terrorists *nice*, then they won't bother us. Fools.”

“XL - I don't think anyone else grasps the border issue. I'd rather our borders be sealed than have the terrorists literally walk right into our country.”

“Mutt, re: the supposed "lie".

Here is what I was referring to, not your quote -

Ron Paul's isolationism is only going to make our enemies stronger. Terrorists and jihadists - and for that matter competing nation-state - would consider cut-n-run-n-defund a major victory. I don't know why Ronbots think the terrorists would leave us alone when they're busy attacking other people around the world who've had NO military involvement in the ME. It's lunacy usually reserved for moonbat liberals.

...

No, Ron Paul is a fecking loon. The only reason Ronbots adore him is that a lot of his other ideas are spot on. He has a cult of personality, and you can tell by his supporters here the type of person swayed by that kind of thing. But this one issue is a complete dealbreaker.”

“But of course what Sarge and other Paulistinians don't understand is that the border can be secured without a disasterous cut-n-run-n-defund scheme.”

“LOL - that's it? You fabricated a lie, claiming I was calling "isolationists" liberals: even going so far as to call isolationists "liberals"!. But your quote above clearly shows I was comparing the lunacy of ron's foreign policy to the lunacy of moonbat liberals (like the kind who opposed military intervention of any kind after 9/11), calling them LOONS, not liberals.”

“It'll be interesting to see if you can stretch this out any further or if you'll drop it. I know admitting you're wrong in an honest fashion is out of the question.”

“Sarge I agree with the Securing of the Borders, but from 1947 to 1988 Eastern Europe had a WALL, Death Strip, Mines, etc etc betwixt it and the West. Yet people GOT across.


My worry is that if you back into a defensive perimeter you are just building a Maginot line which WILL be circumvented.

Kinda like the Prevent Defense in Football, all it Prevent's is a win. The only acceptable policy for Military action is to Attack, Defeat the opposition utterly and then you can go home.”

“And that's where Bush effed up in Iraq.”

“Better call Zebo.”

“Think about your foreign policy the next time you start your fvking car or jump on a plane.

XL, when you join up and go back to China, send me a post card about your foreign policy, ah?”

“we never left Europe, japan, or korea, so that we "can go home" part of your equation doesn't exist.”

“smart choice.”

“Sarge I agree with the Securing of the Borders, but from 1947 to 1988 Eastern Europe had a WALL, Death Strip, Mines, etc etc betwixt it and the West. Yet people GOT across.

.7 million each year?

My worry is that if you back into a defensive perimeter you are just building a Maginot line which WILL be circumvented.

Kinda like the Prevent Defense in Football, all it Prevent's is a win. The only acceptable policy for Military action is to Attack, Defeat the opposition utterly and then you can go home.

Are we currently attacking Mexico?

Put the Army/Airforce on the border. It's war.”

“Ron Paul's defunding idiocy straight from the jackass's mouth:

if you were President, what policies would you seek to implement to make America a freer, safer, fairer, and more prosperous place for its citizens?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: ...cut down to only about 20% of what we are spending on the military... source

There wouldn't be enough left to defend our own borders let alone keep our military a technological generation ahead of other militaries. Idiot.”